does anyone think that the cost of having a royal family out ways the money they can bring in? case in point is the brit's royal family-i've read it somewhere they bring in a lot of money because people are willing to travel to see different royal events.

Correct. In a recent article published, the amount anually allocated to the Royal Family, is 61 pence per tax-paying member of the population. Therefore, anyone's claims that the Royal family drains their money, and should be removed, should also therefore remove anying about the 61 pence they value so highly!

The United Kingdom has such great appeal, as it has the mose famous Royal family with the most famous ceremonies in existance.

__________________

__________________
May she defend our laws, and ever give us cause, to sing with heart and voice, God save the Queen.

The wealthiest RFs would be the Middle Eastern ones, and Brunei, because the oil reserves of their lands are considered to be their private property, not property of the state. Liechtenstein and Monaco have several billion dollars, as well. None of the other Euro royal houses has over a billion dollars, but the wealthiest of the rest would be the Windsors and the Oranges.

The only European royal houses that have true wealth are the Windsors, the Grimaldis, and the Grand Dukes of Leichenstein and Luxemborg. The rest of the European royal houses are not well-off at all, with the possible exception of one or two German families who were lucky enough to invest well in post-war West Germany.

The Windsors wealth has been estimated at around $700 million, most of which is tied up in Sandringham, Balmoral, jewels and a stamp collection.

The Grimaldis and the Prince of Liechtenstein are filthy rich. The Luxembourgers have never been included on international rich lists, so it's hard to see where most people are assuming this money comes from (just because the nation has a lot of banks doesn't mean the family has a lot of money).

Quote:

Originally Posted by linda85

Queen Beatrix is well off. She has made it on to the Forbes Rich List several times in the last few years.

Beatrix was removed from the rich list once her dad actually faxed information about the family's holdings to Forbes. She's nowhere near as rich as had been thought. She apparently got either $250 million or 250 million euros (I can't remember which).

The rest of the reigning royals aren't hurting financially. The Borbons apparently have some $25-30 million. The Belgians admit to $11million, but that apparently doesn't include their private property, art and jewels. The Swedes admitted to $20 million before the stock market tanked. The Danes stated $15 million was too high. The Norwegians, who some people think are great London landowners since the early 1900s even though the great London estates have been in the same families' hands for several hundred years, won't comment.

None of these families, however rich or not-so-rich they might be, are financially dependent on handouts from former subjects. Only the Greeks are in this situation. They are poorer than all the reigning royal houses, and more than a few former reigning families, especially in Germany, have more money than they do.

Queen Beatrix is well off. She has made it on to the Forbes Rich List several times in the last few years.

Her husband, Prince Bernhard, faxed information in 1998 to The Times of London and Forbes Magazine showing she was worth about $80 million, at most. Her allegedly huge stock holdings of Royal Dutch Shell ($3 billion) were shown to be the property of the State, not part of her personal fortune.

Elizabeth II is worth about $250 million in investments, and another $300 million in real property, art and jewels that belong to the Sovereign, rather than the Crown. The Grimaldis are far wealthier than she is ($1.5 billion).

EIIR's stock portfolio is estimated to be 100 million pounds (some say it's even less than that because of the stock market tank -- she had a lot of blue chip British stocks and they took a real hit when the economy faltered), and is estimated to produce between 8 and 10 million pounds income a year (a portion of which is shelled out on Balmoral and refunds to the Treasury, estimated to cost around 3 million pounds a year), nowhere near $250 million -- the exchange rate isn't that favourable.

A lot of the income her stocks have produced have gone into trusts for her children and grandchildren, so, while she could have built up that kind of money, the fact that she's used to income for their trusts means her personal portfolio is worth a lot less than it would be otherwise. Charles' own portfolio, which included stocks inherited from George VI, was only worth around 17 million pounds at the time of his divorce and recently released papers indicated she inherited a mere 30 million pounds (in modern terms) from her father when he died.

Stating that her private belongings are the Sovereign's legally implies they belong to the Crown (the Sovereign is the physical embodiment of the Crown). Usually it's said that they belong to her as a person (as Elizabeth Windsor) rather than to her as a Sovereign. That keeps the confusion over what belongs to her and what belongs to the Crown at a minimum (though republicans twist it anyways).

It's a fine line, to some extent. Even Balmoral and Sandringham are somewhat in trust for the Crown, although technically the Queen could sell them both, because the upkeep and security is paid for by the Civil List.

If the monarchy formally ended, the Queen would most likely surrender the stamp collection, her art and most of the family jewels. Her personal property would probably consist solely of her private money and whatever the value of Sandringham and Balmoral was assessed via an annuity. It would not be paid to her in a lump sum amount.

Stating that her private belongings are the Sovereign's legally implies they belong to the Crown (the Sovereign is the physical embodiment of the Crown). Usually it's said that they belong to her as a person (as Elizabeth Windsor) rather than to her as a Sovereign. That keeps the confusion over what belongs to her and what belongs to the Crown at a minimum (though republicans twist it anyways).

Most of the items do not belong to her as Elizabeth Mountbatten-Windsor. She has a lifetime tenancy and use through the Crown Trust as the Sovereign and then they pass to the next Sovereign after her death. It's just they don't belong to the Exchequer via the Crown Estate.

When Edward VIII abdicated, he did not receive a lump sum amount for Balmoral and Sandringham. He received an annuity instead as it was determined by the King's advisors and the Exchequer that both properties are inalienable from the Crown.

That is simply incorrect. There is no such thing as "The Crown Trust". EIIR refuses to create one, even in the face of criticism about the tax deal that the lack of a trust makes necessary.

Sandringham and Balmoral are EIIR's private properties. She can bequeath Sandringham to whomever she pleases, though if she bequeaths it to anyone other than the next monarch, estate taxes must be paid. Balmoral must be bequeathed to successors under the terms of Victoria's will, which may or may not hold up in a modern court (George V bequeathed it directly to Edward VIII, not to "whoever inherits the throne" i.e. Bertie, Lilibet, etc.). If Balmoral were to automatically go to the successor to the throne, George VI wouldn't have had to essentially buy it from his brother, who initially refused to hand it over.

"Balmoral Castle on the Balmoral Estate in Aberdeenshire, Scotland is the private residence of The Queen."

"Sandringham House in Norfolk has been the private home of four generations of Sovereigns since 1862. ... Like Balmoral, the Sandringham Estate is a commercial estate managed privately on The Queen's behalf."

"Sandringham is the much-loved country retreat of Her Majesty the Queen, and has been the private home of four generations of British monarchs."

Edward VIII didn't receive a lump sum for the estates because George VI didn't have that kind of money. EIIR kept paying for the estates until 5 years into her reign, and she actually cut in half the amount paid for them, but they were paid out of her private income. The Chancellor didn't have anything to do with the deal -- George VI had to come up with the funds out of his income from the Duchy of Lancaster and his private money.

It's a fine line, to some extent. Even Balmoral and Sandringham are somewhat in trust for the Crown, although technically the Queen could sell them both, because the upkeep and security is paid for by the Civil List.

If the monarchy formally ended, the Queen would most likely surrender the stamp collection, her art and most of the family jewels. Her personal property would probably consist solely of her private money and whatever the value of Sandringham and Balmoral was assessed via an annuity. It would not be paid to her in a lump sum amount.

"The annual running and upkeep of the Estate currently costs The Queen personally a considerable sum even after off setting income from forestry, farming, venison sales and tourism enterprises. "

Security isn't included in the Civil List because the amount cannot be released to the public. Even EIIR doesn't know how much security costs.

EIIR wouldn't surrender the stamp collection because it's hers. "Although a personal asset, the collection has always been regarded as an heirloom, but The Queen does make loans of material from the collection for display at exhibitions."

Her art is worth less than 20 million pounds and wouldn't be surrended. Neither would her private jewellery collection.

I read some where that Denmark is the richest. I think it was in life magazine.

No, they are not.

According to Forbes magazine (2004), the richest royal in Europe is Hans Adam, followed by Queen Elizabeth, and finally Queen Beatrix. The Danish royals did not make the list, but that does not mean they are not wealthy; they are simply not up to par, according Forbes magazine, as being wealthy enough to make the list.:)

I heard somewhere about the Leichtenstein family were the richestm or one of the richest.

From Forbes 20051) Hans-Adam von und zu Liechtenstein II & familyPrince, Liechtenstein
$3.2 billion
This prince has the unique distinction of having a country named after his family. Last August he abdicated in favor of his son, Crown Prince Alois. The family's riches include an estimated 20,000 hectares of land in Austria, numerous houses and palaces in Vienna, a producer of genetically engineered rice in the U.S., the private LGT Bank, and a priceless art collection housed in the baroque Garden Palace in Vienna, featuring works by Frans Hals, Van Dyck, Lucas Cranach the Elder, Raphael and Mantegna.